The complexity of human action is based on simple presumptions. For both sophist and philosophers, many of their driving convictions and beliefs stem from one small, in comparison to the greater picture, objective that although sometimes may be intangible, offers the most profound realizations when put into perspective. When contrasting these two extraordinarily different groups of people, in the eyes and opinion of Plato, sophists are the opposite of true philosophers and true thinkers. Essentially, based on the reading, Plato does not affiliate sophists and philosophers in the same category for general reasons (which I will go into detail later) such as the lack for true understanding of the nature of things. However, when considering the
…show more content…
This is to say that the manner in which each group decides to prove their reasoning is similar, and that only the manner is similar, because the reasoning behind each groups beliefs are different, but the approach is not.
When discussing the theory of knowledge, the sophist Protagoras has a brief description of what he believes to be the purpose and focal point of life which can also assimilate to what he believes and values in regards to knowledge. In the text it states “…Protagoras criticizes the arts and sciences … students are not asked to squander their energies engaging in theoretical studies.
Under Protagoras’s guidance and individual is immersed… in acquiring the skills necessary for making a man powerful in public life.” (Supios 277). Primarily, this illustrates the idea that sophists think a man should not waste his time on futile, theoretical things because all man truly needs to know is how to be man, and how to live, even if they don’t go through obstacles first hand, they are taught the lessons of obstacles in hopes that they’ll be able to live the life of which a man wants to live which is a life with power. On the other side of the spectrum, Socrates feels as though knowledge is the matter of psychic assessment meaning one must try to understand …show more content…
Sophist felt as though the best way to live was to think that the measure of truth is whatever works; to use rhetoric as a means of expressing “truth” or opinions because man can create truth; that there was no need for “soul-searching”, and that man did not need divine intervention to get what he wants in life. I believe some part of this type of thinking could have and did have a negative impact on society. It gave people who did not deserve influential positions total control. It allowed for complete malarkey that was uttered from any persons mouth to become believable because the so called “truth” was relative. And lastly it sparked the up rise in power of insubordinately doltish and half-witted people to take high up hierarchal places in society that could have been given to those significantly worthier. In summary, the beliefs of sophists conclusively can only be described as utterly destructive, and would demolition any society that tried to undergo all their ideas and use their impracticable suppositions. As for philosophers, the ideas of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. have brought positively influential changes to society. For instance, better understanding one’s self, in order
This is to say that the manner in which each group decides to prove their reasoning is similar, and that only the manner is similar, because the reasoning behind each groups beliefs are different, but the approach is not.
When discussing the theory of knowledge, the sophist Protagoras has a brief description of what he believes to be the purpose and focal point of life which can also assimilate to what he believes and values in regards to knowledge. In the text it states “…Protagoras criticizes the arts and sciences … students are not asked to squander their energies engaging in theoretical studies.
Under Protagoras’s guidance and individual is immersed… in acquiring the skills necessary for making a man powerful in public life.” (Supios 277). Primarily, this illustrates the idea that sophists think a man should not waste his time on futile, theoretical things because all man truly needs to know is how to be man, and how to live, even if they don’t go through obstacles first hand, they are taught the lessons of obstacles in hopes that they’ll be able to live the life of which a man wants to live which is a life with power. On the other side of the spectrum, Socrates feels as though knowledge is the matter of psychic assessment meaning one must try to understand …show more content…
Sophist felt as though the best way to live was to think that the measure of truth is whatever works; to use rhetoric as a means of expressing “truth” or opinions because man can create truth; that there was no need for “soul-searching”, and that man did not need divine intervention to get what he wants in life. I believe some part of this type of thinking could have and did have a negative impact on society. It gave people who did not deserve influential positions total control. It allowed for complete malarkey that was uttered from any persons mouth to become believable because the so called “truth” was relative. And lastly it sparked the up rise in power of insubordinately doltish and half-witted people to take high up hierarchal places in society that could have been given to those significantly worthier. In summary, the beliefs of sophists conclusively can only be described as utterly destructive, and would demolition any society that tried to undergo all their ideas and use their impracticable suppositions. As for philosophers, the ideas of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. have brought positively influential changes to society. For instance, better understanding one’s self, in order